It has been some time since I posted about the Oscars for reasons best left unsaid. Suffice to say they do not really mean as much to me now as they once did. I used to pay attention every year but not as much anymore. However, the history of them remains interesting to me and having gone down a rabbit hole thanks to The Ringer doing a podcast on The Color of Money, I happily dug in. Especially on my favorite actor Paul Newman. Infamously he would win this Oscar in 1986 for that film after 6 times not winning for (arguably) better roles/performances.
I must backtrack slightly and say that one of the things that fascinate me about the Oscars are the wins/losses, so many or lack thereof and how they went down year in and year out when looking back at them. It astounds me that Peter O'Toole never won an Oscar (and I've blogged on this in the past.) So too Richard Burton. Not one win in seven tries. Alfred Hitchcock never won an Oscar with five nominations. Arguably one of the greatest directors of the 20th Century. Glenn Close has never won an Oscar after eight nominations (pushing O'Toole.) To me, the one that kills is Al Pacino. He'd been nominated 6 times without a win and then got both 7 and 8 in 1993. He would finally win, but for the wrong film. (Note, he now has a ninth nomination but still just the one acting Oscar.)
But this post is dedicated to Newman (so it will surely be 12 times better than any other post.) In total, Paul Newman was nominated nine times between 1959 and 2003 before his death in 2008. And perhaps outside of his role in Sweet Bird of Youth in 1962, he was almost always given a nod when deserved (well, more on that below.) As before, what I want to do here is look back at each of these "contests" and see if the outcome was deserved or not. If nothing else, it gives me a chance to look back at some amazing films and at the worst, allows me to judge both the Oscar voters and the times in which these votes were made. So, we begin at the beginning:
1959
- David Niven – Separate Tables as Major David Angus Pollock
- Tony Curtis – The Defiant Ones as John "Joker" Jackson
- Paul Newman – Cat on a Hot Tin Roof as Brick Pollitt
- Sidney Poitier – The Defiant Ones as Noah Cullen
- Spencer Tracy – The Old Man and the Sea as The Old Man
Firstly, I must say here that I have sadly never seen The Defiant Ones. To my shame. That said, I have to think that Curtis and Poitier cut into each other's votes here. Poitier would go on to win an Oscar (which we will cover below.) This was Tony Curtis' only nomination. Spencer Tracy was nearing the end of his terribly successful career and had already won twice (and never would win again...shades of Bette Davis.) And Niven? I have seen Separate Tables and while I love the actor, the work itself does not hold up terribly well. Prestige picture, sure. Maybe ahead of its time given the subject matter. But to compete with one of the great Tennessee Williams plays? This is a year in which Gigi won Best Picture and Elizabeth Taylor did not even win Best Actress for her role in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. I have to say, right off the bat, this was a miss. Maybe it should not have been Newman compared to Curtis or Poitier, but the eventual winner seems weak.
I'll call this a +1 in his favor.
1962
- Maximilian Schell – Judgment at Nuremberg as Hans Rolfe
- Charles Boyer – Fanny as César
- Paul Newman – The Hustler as Eddie Felson
- Spencer Tracy – Judgment at Nuremberg as Dan Haywood
- Stuart Whitman – The Mark as Jim Fuller
We're still early on in my film watching career so I've never seen César or The Mark. Boyer is a great actor and also never won an Oscar but this was his fourth nomination (most notably to me for Gaslight in 1944.) Whitman is most definitely a "that guy" and this would be his only nomination. So this contest comes down to the two films. As always, one must look at two actors nominated from the same film so it is impressive that Schell pulled out the win. But again, Tracy is nominated and having already won 2, maybe did not get the votes he might otherwise deserve. To me, this is one of Newman's iconic roles (which would later give him his actual Oscar) but I have to admit if I am looking at this objectively, I would probably give my vote to Tracy. So another fail. I think Schell is great, but Tracy is better. And so is Newman.
I'll call this a +0 because it would not have necessarily gone to Newman if Schell doesn't win.
1964
- Sidney Poitier – Lilies of the Field as Homer Smith
- Albert Finney – Tom Jones as Tom Jones
- Richard Harris – This Sporting Life as Frank Machin
- Rex Harrison – Cleopatra as Julius Caesar
- Paul Newman – Hud as Hud Bannon
I really cannot fault this year. Five great actors in five great films. While some might push for Finney here, I think this was a two man contest and the best man/performance won. Don't get me wrong, Newman is amazing in Hud (as is the great Patricia Neal who would win Best Actress for her performance) but Poitier cements himself as a power in both race and talent and I would not change this result in any way.
Call it another +0 because the right man won.
1968
- Rod Steiger – In the Heat of the Night as Police Chief Bill Gillespie
- Warren Beatty – Bonnie and Clyde as Clyde Barrow
- Dustin Hoffman – The Graduate as Benjamin Braddock
- Paul Newman – Cool Hand Luke as Lucas "Cool Hand Luke" Jackson
- Spencer Tracy (posthumous nomination) – Guess Who's Coming to Dinner as Matt Drayton
To me, this year is the oddest contest. I love Hoffman and he deserves his nomination, but he is the least deserving of these five great actors. And Beatty is amazing even if he is not one of my overall favorites. The oddest thing is that Poitier was NOT nominated and Steiger was (much less won the thing.) It was, obviously, a year in which race relations were widely considered and rightly so. Thus, Tracy certainly deserved his rightly given nomination even if he had died by this time. If both Steiger and Poitier had been nominated, I can see a split vote. But that only Steiger got the nod, I guess he eeks out the win.
All of this is backdrop to me to one of the greatest Newman performances of all time! It is his greatest performance and his most iconic role in a career of many. It's my 2nd favorite performance of his career (again, more below) and that it was even a contest is shocking to me. I suppose we can assume "timeliness" and all of that, but it doesn't make it right. This should have been Paul's all day long.
I give this a +4 in Newman's favor because he was better than any of the others to my mind.
1982
- Henry Fonda – On Golden Pond as Norman Thayer Jr.
- Warren Beatty – Reds as John Silas "Jack" Reed
- Burt Lancaster – Atlantic City as Lou Pascal
- Dudley Moore – Arthur as Arthur Bach
- Paul Newman – Absence of Malice as Michael Gallagher
I can't argue with these results in any way. It says something that Newman went over a decade without a nomination (and again...more below) but these are some amazing performances and Fonda absolutely deserved this nod and win! Here's another that had a long career without the recognition he likely deserved. I'm not a huge fan of Reds but Beatty deserved this and Lancaster is great in his film. More than anything, I love Arthur and Moore. It is one of my favorite films of all time and I'm just happy he got the nod for his performance. Newman too deserves his nod this year, but the right man won. Easy and hands down.
Definitely a +0 for Newman here.
1983
- Ben Kingsley – Gandhi as Mahatma Gandhi
- Dustin Hoffman – Tootsie as Michael Dorsey/Dorothy Michaels
- Jack Lemmon – Missing as Edmund Horman
- Paul Newman – The Verdict as Frank Galvin
- Peter O'Toole – My Favorite Year as Alan Swann
Just damn! One of the toughest contests of Newman's career. These are five iconic performances from five amazing actors. I'm sad to say, as much as I love these actors, Lemmon and O'Toole are also rans here. They are great, but the real winner should have been Hoffman for Tootsie. Newman is awesome in The Verdict, but Hoffman goes all out. Did they cancel each other out? Hard to say. And Kingsley? I cannot fault his win here because it is an amazing performance in an amazing film.
Honestly I would rank them Hoffman, Kingsley, Newman, O'Toole and then Lemmon. And I'll watch any film of theirs at any time. All five I consider my favorite actors!
Got to call this a +0 for Newman. He wasn't going to win.
1987
- Paul Newman – The Color of Money as "Fast Eddie" Felson
- Dexter Gordon – Round Midnight as Dale Turner
- Bob Hoskins – Mona Lisa as George
- William Hurt – Children of a Lesser God as James Leeds
- James Woods – Salvador as Richard Boyle
It has been suggested over the years that this was a gimme Oscar. I think that is wrong. Paul finally gets his recognition by the Academy. Rightfully so. These are all great performances (most especially to me by Dexter Gordon, but he was an enlightened choice by the nominating committee...he wasn't going to win.) The interesting thing this year was William Hurt. At the time, he was in the midst if a five year run of amazing performances with all accolades given and deservedly so. He'd just won the Oscar the previous year for Kiss of the Spider Woman and would be nominated again the next year for Broadcast News. That, to me, is the only thing that suggests it might be a gimme Oscar for Newman. Marlee Matlin would win for Best Actress (which I might have given to Sissy Spacek for Crimes of the Heart or Sigourney Weaver for Aliens...but so be it) and it was clear this was a well considered film. But Newman had never won.
Like John Wayne for True Grit or Pacino in Scent of a Woman, it is understandable that Newman would get this ultimate nod finally. In my mind, he deserved it more than either of those two for their winning roles. And he joins a small group of people nominated twice for the same role (again, Pacino in The Godfather.) It is an amazing film (and the reason I'm blogging about it today) but as I look back at his career, it does look a bit as a gimme. By my count, he should have already won once, if not twice (and he did not even compete in some other instances...once more...see below.) I'll take the win.
No need to give a plus or minus here because he won.
1995
- Tom Hanks – Forrest Gump as Forrest Gump
- Morgan Freeman – The Shawshank Redemption as Ellis Boyd "Red" Redding
- Nigel Hawthorne – The Madness of King George as King George III of the United Kingdom
- Paul Newman – Nobody's Fool as Donald "Sully" Sullivan
- John Travolta – Pulp Fiction as Vincent Vega
OK. This is one of the most egregious years ever. Look, I love Tom Hanks and I enjoy Forrest Gump, but please! Hawthorne was amazing, no question about it. And Travolta? He was lucky to get this nod as much as I enjoy that film. This is a two man race and neither man won. We are talking about two of my favorite films and two of my favorite performances. It's hard for me to say which I might have voted for at the time should I have a vote, but I nudge towards Newman. Freeman should have won, in my mind, but I would have been happy (and rooted for) Newman to pick up a 2nd. I guess they felt he already had one now and Freeman would have to wait (as he would eventually win for Million Dollar Baby.)
What to give this one? Hmm. I guess a +1 because he should have had a shot.
2003
- Chris Cooper – Adaptation as John Laroche
- Ed Harris – The Hours as Richard "Richie" Brown
- Paul Newman – Road to Perdition as John Rooney
- John C. Reilly – Chicago as Amos Hart
- Christopher Walken – Catch Me If You Can as Frank Abagnale Sr.
I've no problem with this, especially because this was a Supporting Actor nomination. Prior to this, Newman was always nominated for Best Actor. This last was just the Academy being the Academy. Long time famous actor that does something interesting? Sure...why not. Look at Meryl Streep (and don't get me wrong, I love her!) I think the only competition here was between Cooper and Walken. The right man won.
Call it another +0.
So...what to make of all of this?
Nothing really since Paul finally got his Oscar. But I keep saying more later and here's where we get into that. Two years after Newman was nominated for Cool Hand Luke, he was NOT nominated for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. It's only my favorite film of his and not only was he not nominated, neither was Redford. Instead, here was that year's roster:
- John Wayne – True Grit as Rooster Cogburn
- Richard Burton – Anne of the Thousand Days as King Henry VIII of England
- Dustin Hoffman – Midnight Cowboy as Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo
- Peter O'Toole – Goodbye, Mr. Chips as Arthur Chipping
- Jon Voight – Midnight Cowboy as Joe Buck
Do you see the miss here? Burton, Hoffman, and Voight definitely deserved their nominations. I love O'Toole, so...OK. Wayne! And he won. How is Newman not nominated here??
+2 here because Hoffman and Voight likely deserved this and Burton was still on his losing streak.
Now how about 1973...
That year the Best Actor race was:
- Jack Lemmon – Save the Tiger as Harry Stoner
- Marlon Brando – Last Tango in Paris as Paul
- Jack Nicholson – The Last Detail as Billy "Badass" Buddusky
- Al Pacino – Serpico as Frank Serpico
- Robert Redford – The Sting as Johnny Hooker
I've no problem with the winner here or any of these nominations except that Newman is better than Redford in The Sting (AND the film itself won Best Picture.) As much as I love Brando, Newman should have had that slot and we'd still see the same winner. After all, Lemmon is one of the greats and this is one of his greats (and his second Oscar after Mr. Roberts.) Brando already had 2 after On the Waterfront and The Godfather, Nicholson had 1 from One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest (on his way to 3 with Terms of Endearment and As Good As it Gets) and Pacino was still on his losing streak. Redford has never won an acting Oscar (this was his only nomination) so he would wait to win for Ordinary People in 1980 as Director (and even there...Raging Bull anyone?)
So the way I see it, Paul Newman should have 3 competitive Oscars (and at least 2 more nominations.) I'll take the win for The Color of Money and add a win for Cool Hand Luke and Nobody's Fool (and possibly a 4th for Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.) Honestly, he should have been nominated and then won for Butch Cassidy. He certainly deserved them and this is, of course, an exercise in what if. It wasn't. After all, and again, Hitchcock never won an Oscar. Burton never won an Oscar. O'Toole never won one. At least Paul got his the one time.
Feel free to offer your own opinions about such as I welcome them and if there is another you are interested in me looking at (as if you couldn't) please let know. But I went down a rabbit hole this morning and this is what I came up with. A whole slew of Hollywood history, films, actors and actresses and I find all of that interesting even if the Oscars mean nothing. So there is that. And...that is all.
Comments